Harry F. Dahms

How social science is impossible without critical theory: The immersion of mainstream approaches in time and space

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.1

Theory in Weberian Marxism: Patterns of Critical Social Theory in Lukács and Habermas*:

For Weberian Marxists, the social theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx are complementary contributions to the analysis of modern capitalist society. Combining Webers theory of rationalization with Marxs critique of commodity fetishism to develop his own critique of reification, Georg Lukács contended that the combination of Marxs and Webers social theories is essential to envisioning socially transformative modes of praxis in advanced capitalist society. By comparing Lukács ‘s theory of reification with Habermass theory of communicative action as two theories in the tradition of Weberian Marxism, I show how the prevailing mode of “doing theory” has shifted from Marxs critique of economic determinism to Webers idea of the inner logic of social value spheres. Today, Weberian Marxism can make an important contribution to theoretical sociology by reconstituting itself as a framework for critically examining prevailing societal definitions of the rationalization imperatives specific to purposive-rational social value spheres (the economy, the administrative state, etc.). In a second step, Weberian Marxists would explore how these value spheres relate to each other and to value spheres that are open to the type of communicative rationalization characteristic of the lifeworld level of social organization.

Toward a Critical Theory of Capital in the 21st Century: Thomas Piketty between Adam Smith and the Prospect of Apocalypse:

Do the dynamics of private capital accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony among the classes, as Simon Kuznets thought in the twentieth century? What do we really know about how wealth and income have evolved since the eighteenth century, and what lessons can we derive from that knowledge for the century now underway? (p. 1)

Theorizing Modern Society as an Inverted Reality: How Critical Theory and Indigenous Critiques of Globalization Must Learn From Each Other

Abstract Purpose To examine whether indigenous critiques of globalization and critical theories of modernity are compatible, and how they can complement each other so as to engender more realistic theories of modern society as inherently constructive and destructive, along with practical strategies to strengthen modernity as a culturally transformative project, as opposed to the formal modernization processes that rely on and reinforce modern societies as structures of social inequality. Methodology/approach Comparison and assessment of the foundations, orientations, and implications of indigenous critiques of globalization and the Frankfurt School’s critical theory of modern society, for furthering our understanding of challenges facing human civilization in the twenty-first century, and for opportunities to promote social justice. Findings Modern societies maintain order by compelling individuals to subscribe to propositions about their own and their society’s purportedly “superior” nature, especially when compared to indigenous cultures, to override observations about the de facto logic of modern societies that are in conflict with their purported logic. Research implications Social theorists need to make consistent efforts to critically reflect on how their own society, in terms of socio-historical circumstances as well as various types of implied biases, translates into research agendas and propositions that are highly problematic when applied to those who belong to or come from different socio-historical contexts. Originality/value An effort to engender a process of reciprocal engagement between one of the early traditions of critiquing modern societies and a more recent development originating in populations and parts of the world that historically have been the subject of both constructive and destructive modernization processes.

Introduction: “Globalization between the Cold war and Neo-Imperialism”

In early April 2004, a group of social scientists gathered at Florida State University, for an interdisciplinary conference on “Globalization and the Sedimentation of the Cold War.”1 The papers and discussions centered around the following question: Has the configuration of business–labor–government relations that took hold in the West after World War II – during the so-called “Cold War” – become “sedimented” in ways that delimit the possible scope of choices and actions decision-makers in key institutions and organizations can make and engage in. Has it done so in a manner that resembles an underlying program which remains concealed from sight – perhaps more so, as time goes by? If we should need to answer this question in the affirmative, this program would predetermine both the confines of strategies institutions and organizations can pursue in their efforts to confront emerging challenges, and the nature of the results those strategies produce. While the configuration, as it took shape in western democratic societies – especially in North America and Western Europe, but also in Japan – was historically specific, it produced a condition that appears to perpetuate patterns established during, and characteristic of, the Cold War – beyond the official end of the Cold War. By implication, decision-makers in politics, business, and the policy apparatus would presume the prevalence of patterns that were endemic to the Cold War constellation of business, labor, and government, along with corresponding definitions of the functions and responsibilities of government, as integral to the design of early twenty-first century societies. Put differently, in the absence of a definite break with the political and economic patterns that took hold during the Cold War, the latter will remain as a central feature and organizing principle, continuing to define the perimeter of choices we perceive, the nature of goals we pursue, and the types of means we both employ and deploy.

Civil Society and the State in the Neoliberal Era: Dynamics of Friends and Enemies

Purpose – The discourse about civil society is closely tied to the role of collective action in general, and of social movements in particular. Yet the origins of the recent emphasis on civil society are located in the 1980s – the time period during which the wave of neoliberalism began its rise and spread. Design/methodology/approach – In order to properly situate the concept of civil society and related debates, they must be linked to efforts to delegitimate and demonize the state that also started gaining momentum during that decade. Findings – The historical context of its emergence suggests that civil society may not be so much an analytical category for purposes of social research, but a theoretical category that is imbued with political content, both positively and negatively – both as a means to promote progressive ends, and as an expression of the context in which those ends started to face mounting resistance. Research limitations/implications – At the very least, the concept of civil society has a tendency to distract – both by design and by default – from important questions and challenges, such as those related to the role and persistence of structures of inequality in early 21st century global civilization. Originality/value – A promising starting point to circumnavigate the counterproductive consequences of the use and abuse of the civil society concept and debate for social research may be its explicitly dynamic conceptualization.

Critical Theory as Radical Comparative–Historical Research

This chapter highlights how considering the contributions of critical theory would enhance the work of comparative–historical social scientists, by drawing attention to two dimensions that traditionally have been ignored in comparative–historical analysis. First, comparative–historical analysis tends to sideline the question of whether different social, political, cultural, and economic forms may in fact be expressive of an underlying, historical logic that must not be ignored. Second, comparative–historical analysts do not appear to consider that and how their research agenda may be an expression of the specificity of social–historical circumstances they endeavor to illuminate, but which, in a sense, is being objectified via comparative–historical social scientists’ preferred mode of analysis. For the most part, comparative–historical researchers seems to work from the assumption that there is no need for the examination of how their research agendas, questions, and tools are situated in and reflect the societal universe, beyond the scope of particular cases, similarities, and differences.

Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Digital Ontotheology: Toward a Critical Rethinking of Science Fiction as Theory

In utopian/science fiction literature, comprehensive knowledge is a familiar motif that also inspires recent policies to screen society through surveillance. In the late 20th century, a digital archive promised to facilitate quick access to abundant information and effective strategies to confront myriad challenges. Yet, today, the scale and scope of information accumulation in national and corporate repositories is reaching proportions whose intelligent processing excedes human capabilities, and triggering a shift in focus from dumb repository to artificial intelligence. Processing such accumulation of knowledge necessiates skills commonly attributed to divinity. Without a theory that recognizes this condition and informs the operations of artificial intelligence, the latter is likely to fail in human ways, e.g., by perceiving false patterns resulting from flawed theories assigning meaning to knowledge. For successful pattern recognition to occur, theories must rest on science fiction and a digital ontotheology of the machine as the form this archive assumes.

Real Utopias and the University: An Interview

I think it is useful to contrast two different ways of thinking about the moral foundations of what can be called “critical emancipatory social science.” The first emphasizes the ways in which existing institutions and social structures generate human suffering and obstruct human flourishing. The second emphasizes the ways in which existing institutions and social structures distribute the conditions for suffering and flourishing unfairly. The first of these anchors the moral critique of the world as it is in terms of human interests, the second in terms of social justice. I think both of these are important. The world would be a better place if suffering and flourishing were less unequally distributed, and it would be a better place if there was less suffering and more flourishing. Both matter. But if I had to say which of these ideas was the more fundamental to my work, I would have to say that it was the first. This is why, in my 2012 presidential address at the American Sociological Association, I argued that the fundamental propositions of a critical emancipatory social science were the following: Foundational proposition of critical social science: Many forms of human suffering and many deficits in human flourishing are the result of existing institutions and social structures. Foundational proposition of emancipatory social science: Transforming existing institutions and social structures in the right way has the potential to substantially reduce human suffering and expand the possibilities for human flourishing.

Theorizing Europe as the Future of Modern Society: European Integration between Thick Norms and Thin Politics*

AbstractMany Americans are overwhelmed when confronted with questions relating to the European Union. And sociologists who are not working directly on related themes, as well as social theorists concerned with incarnations of modern society, have long ignored the peculiar character and historical implications of the developing European Union. But now a growing number of European theorists have begun to focus on the significance of European integration for the very discipline of sociology. To situate and evaluate some of this recent work, I deploy Gregg’s (2003) distinction between thick norms and thin politics. That distinction helps us see that developments in the European Union point toward the formation of a new kind of modern society.